# Feature request

Richard Godard (rgodard@divsun.unige.ch)
Fri, 12 Jan 1996 10:21:41 PST

- Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

    At 17:33 1/12/96, Zachary DeAquila wrote:
    >While everyone is doling out feature requests for poor belabored Pavel, I
    >figured I'd
    >add a fairly non-esoteric request to the list:  an 'o' flag for verbs, by
    >default on,
    >that stands for 'overrideable'.  !o verbs cannot be overriden by children
    >of the
    >object - I think it may be easiest to implement as an E_PERM if someone
    >(anyone!? wizonly?
    >hrm.) tries to define an overriding verb on a child, or similarly if they
    >try and chparent()
    >an object with such a verb defined.
    >
    >I think this would increase security a *lot*.  Comments?
    >
    >  --Zachary

    I implemented that in-db... it was more a programming exercise than
    something useful (because of the overhead involved when you chparent an
    object or rename a verb)

    If there is to be a 'o' flag in the server, how do you suggest to implement
    them ? What happens when you change the verb perms from +o to -o and that
    there are kids that define verbs with the same name ? What about
    chparenting objects (given that a verb that is +o in a hirerachy can be -o
    in another) ?

    I personnally took an approach a la 'c' flag for properties... (maybe not
    the best, but the 'easiest' to implement).

    Speaking f flags... what about the 'p' one for having passable/non-passable
    verbs ? (just curious... does anyone implemented it in-db ? :-) ;-)

    Janus

    ---
    "640K ought to be enough for anybody."
        -- Bill Gates, 1981